This Act, referred to in subsecs. (e)(1), (k)(2)(B), and (m), is Pub. L. 106–546, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2726, known as the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2000 Amendments note set out under section 13701 of this title and Tables.

Section was enacted as part of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000, and not as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which enacted this chapter.

2006—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 109–162 substituted “collected under applicable legal authority” for “taken from individuals convicted of a qualifying State offense (as determined under subsection (b)(3) of this section)”.

2004—Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(1), substituted “The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program” for “Authorization of grants” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(A), in introductory provisions, inserted “or units of local government” after “eligible States” and “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(B), inserted “, including samples from rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in cases without an identified suspect” before period at end.

Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(2)(C), (b)(1)(A), struck out “within the State” after “local government” and inserted “(1) or” before “(2)”.

Subsec. (a)(4), (5). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(1)(B), added pars. (4) and (5).

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(A), in introductory provisions, inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in two places and “, as required by the Attorney General” after “application shall”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(B), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(C), inserted “or unit of local government” after “that the State”.

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(D), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” and struck out “and” at end.

Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(E), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” and substituted semicolon for period at end.

Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(3)(F), added par. (6).

Subsec. (b)(7). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(2), added par. (7).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(3), amended heading and text of subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A State that proposes to allocate grant amounts under paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) of this section for the purposes specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall use such allocated amounts to conduct or facilitate DNA analyses of those samples that relate to crimes in connection with which there are no suspects.”

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(4)(A), substituted “A plan pursuant to subsection (b)(1) of this section” for “The plan” in introductory provisions and struck out “within the State” after “local government” in subpars. (A) and (B).

Subsec. (d)(2)(A). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(4)(B), inserted “and units of local government” after “States”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 108–405, § 206, amended heading and text of par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “A grant for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section may be made in the form of a voucher for laboratory services, which may be redeemed at a laboratory operated by a private entity approved by the Attorney General that satisfies quality assurance standards. The Attorney General may make payment to such a laboratory for the analysis of DNA samples using amounts authorized for those purposes under subsection (j) of this section.”

Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(5)(A), inserted “or local government” after “State” in two places.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(5)(B), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(6), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(7)(A), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State”.

Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(7)(B), inserted “or units of local government” after “States”.

Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(4), added par. (3).

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(a)(8), inserted “or unit of local government” after “State” in pars. (1) and (2).

Subsec. (j)(1) to (5). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(5), substituted pars. (1) to (5) for former pars. (1) and (2) which read as follows:

“(1) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraph (1) of such subsection—

“(A) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

“(B) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and

“(C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

“(2) For grants for the purposes specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of such subsection—

“(A) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

“(B) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

“(C) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; and

“(D) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.”

Subsec. (k) to (m). Pub. L. 108–405, § 202(b)(6), added subsecs. (k) to (m).

Pub. L. 106–561, § 4, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2791, provided that:

“(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—

“(1) over the past decade, deoxyribonucleic acid testing (referred to in this section as ‘DNA testing’) has emerged as the most reliable forensic technique for identifying criminals when biological material is left at a crime scene;

“(2) because of its scientific precision, DNA testing can, in some cases, conclusively establish the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant;

“(3) in other cases, DNA testing may not conclusively establish guilt or innocence, but may have significant probative value to a finder of fact;

“(4) DNA testing was not widely available in cases tried prior to 1994;

“(5) new forensic DNA testing procedures have made it possible to get results from minute samples that could not previously be tested, and to obtain more informative and accurate results than earlier forms of forensic DNA testing could produce, resulting in some cases of convicted inmates being exonerated by new DNA tests after earlier tests had failed to produce definitive results;

“(6) DNA testing can and has resulted in the post-conviction exoneration of more than 75 innocent men and women, including some under sentence of death;

“(7) in more than a dozen cases, post-conviction DNA testing that has exonerated an innocent person has also enhanced public safety by providing evidence that led to the apprehension of the actual perpetrator;

“(8) experience has shown that it is not unduly burdensome to make DNA testing available to inmates in appropriate cases;

“(9) under current Federal and State law, it is difficult to obtain post-conviction DNA testing because of time limits on introducing newly discovered evidence;

“(10) the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, a Federal panel established by the Department of Justice and comprised of law enforcement, judicial, and scientific experts, has urged that post-conviction DNA testing be permitted in the relatively small number of cases in which it is appropriate, notwithstanding procedural rules that could be invoked to preclude such testing, and notwithstanding the inability of an inmate to pay for the testing;

“(11) only a few States have adopted post-conviction DNA testing procedures;

“(12) States have received millions of dollars in DNA-related grants, and more funding is needed to improve State forensic facilities and to reduce the nationwide backlog of DNA samples from convicted offenders and crime scenes that need to be tested or retested using upgraded methods;

“(13) States that accept such financial assistance should not deny the promise of truth and justice for both sides of our adversarial system that DNA testing offers;

“(14) post-conviction DNA testing and other post-conviction investigative techniques have shown that innocent people have been sentenced to death in this country;

“(15) a constitutional error in capital cases is incompetent defense lawyers who fail to present important evidence that the defendant may have been innocent or does not deserve to be sentenced to death; and

“(16) providing quality representation to defendants facing loss of liberty or life is essential to fundamental due process and the speedy final resolution of judicial proceedings.

“(b) Sense of Congress.—It is the sense of Congress that—

“(1) Congress should condition forensic science-related grants to a State or State forensic facility on the State’s agreement to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases; and

“(2) Congress should work with the States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases through the establishment of standards that will assure the timely appointment of competent counsel with adequate resources to represent defendants in capital cases at each stage of the proceedings.”

Pub. L. 106–546, § 11, Dec. 19, 2000, 114 Stat. 2735, enacted provisions substantially identical to those enacted by Pub. L. 106–561, § 4, set out above.